Hey there,
: This would be one of the 3 co-equal branches that which help organize under the Federal Government.
: This would be people who enforce the laws in the states. They make them and they have people understand them.
_____________________________________________________________
: They both help sustain laws and keep them under control. As the
sustain's the government, the
sustain's the states laws.
Hope this helps.
~Jurgen
You didn't provide a list of choices, but I'll provide a key example: The US intervention in Korea. In Korea, when communist forces from the North invaded the South in 1950, the United States intervened (with United Nations backing), battled to keep South Korea free and democratic, and were able to do so. The Soviet Union did not play an active, open role in that war, but did covertly supply <span>material services to the North Korean side, as well as Soviet pilots and aircraft. Keeping communism from spreading in Korea was a way the US was practicing its policy of containment over against Soviet communist influence.</span>
Explanation:
After winning the 1936 presidential election in a landslide, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a bill to expand the membership of the Supreme Court. The law would have added one justice to the Court for each justice over the age of 70, with a maximum of six additional justices. Roosevelt’s motive was clear – to shape the ideological balance of the Court so that it would cease striking down his New Deal legislation. As a result, the plan was widely and vehemently criticized. The law was never enacted by Congress, and Roosevelt lost a great deal of political support for having proposed it. Shortly after the president made the plan public, however, the Court upheld several government regulations of the type it had formerly found unconstitutional. In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, for example, the Court upheld the right of the federal government to regulate labor-management relations pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. Many have attributed this and similar decisions to a politically motivated change of heart on the part of Justice Owen Roberts, often referred to as “the switch in time that saved nine.” Some legal scholars have rejected this narrative, however, asserting that Roberts' 1937 decisions were not motivated by Roosevelt's proposal and can instead be reconciled with his prior jurisprudence.
